And sorry but...no drivers in F1 lack overtaking skills. Even Karthikeyan. You simply can't get there without them. When you see collisions from overtaking maneuvers in F1 its generally a failure of judgement, not a failure of execution.

No one expects Mark to roll over, but putting your car very tight to the inside going into a 90 degree corner is not wise especially when you are leading the championship.

That incident is just as likely to end with Webber losing his front wing end plate and Hamilton continuing. The title was very very tight at that point and it was a bit risky from Webber.

He cost himself the title in the very next race with another silly move and this time paid the price.

It wasn't risky from Webber though. He was being overtaken and had a right to defend his position. As you say, he's not supposed to roll over. It was a racing incident yes, but if one could apportion blame in that incident. More of it will be at Hamilton's door. He can't turn into the corner like that and expect Webber to vanish.

This.

He did the exact same thing to Kobayashi a year later in Spa. Once making that mistake is fair enough, twice makes him look a big silly and that he doesn't learn. We all know he's a better driver than that.

I would even argue he did a similar thing in Valencia 2012 with Maldonado but I still have doubts about which pedal Maldonado had his foot on as he hit Lewis so Hamilton gets the benefit of the doubt.

At Spa BOTH drivers made a mistake . Kobayashi turned in Lewis direction when Lewis passed him, & Lewis thought he was already past. Kobayashi had as much fault as Hamilton.

Valencia was completely different!Maldonado was the overtaker thereMaldonado made a mistake and left the track , as he changed back to the track he lost the control of the car & he drove straight into HamiltonMaldonado had also cut the corner with his trip off the track, he would have had to let Lewis past anyhow. To try to put blame on Hamilton for Valencia 2012 is absolutely ridiculous!

You should try to watch the races

Read more closely Haribo. I never out any blame on Hamilton for Valencia. In hindsight one could argue with finalised tyres he could have just let Pastor go though. But like I said I dunno how hard Pastor was actually pushing on his brake pedal at that point in time...

As for Spa, it was Hamilton's fault. Everyone said so at the time and nothing has changed since then. He cut across KK thinking he'd completed the move when he hadn't.

..This is another one of those threads where I feel bad for being a Hamilton fan isn't it.

Can I ask Haribo and A.rellum; Spa 2011 - Hamilton and Kobayashi; Who do you think was at fault?Because it was the same thing as Singapore 2010.

The fact is he closed the door too early in an overtake and took himself out.

I think he's a bloody great driver and one of my favourite, but Christ alive, the amount of times I've gone "Oh Hami,Hami,Hami...what are you doing?" over the past 5 years.... It's ok to admit your favourite driver makes mistakes.

I like this forummer a lot! Can support a driver and see his mistakes! Guys we've got another good one here!

The thing is, (and I'm referring to Singapore 2010) is that it was just the tiniest mistake. But in Formula One, just a tiny mistake can have profound repercussions. And let's try to look at it without getting crazy. It's in the heat of battle for the WDC, a Formula One car has absolutely horrible vision from any angle, and what happened was not a car ramming another, but two cars that touched fighting for the same corner. I believe that Hamilton made just a tiny mistake, he believed he was clear of Webber. That doesn't make him a jerk, or moron, or anything remotely negative, it was just a very tiny mistake in judging distances and timing under the most difficult circumstances. Heck, it was also a night race, that also factors into the equation. The incident occured on a restart lap, when aggression is high and weird things happen.

Anyone, anyone could have made the same mistake.

These guys are Formula One drivers, where expectations are high, and they are expected to fight for every millimeter. And anyone who has watched Webber at any time knows that he will not concede anything, you have to take it from him. Just look how he treated Vettel in Brazil (2012) at the start. Could Webber have backed off? Definitely yes. Should he have backed off? Definitely no, he was expected to contest every position.

I believe that almost every fan expects any driver to race hard, but clean, to attack with vigor, and defend with the same amount of determination and energy. Trulli was sacked by Briatore (hmm, Webber's current manager) because he believed he surrendered a position without defending hard enough. Ralf earned a reputation for not attacking his famous brother when he had the opportunity. Some of the best drives and victories are a result of a driver defending his position with tremendous zeal and energy. Senna against Mansell at Monaco, Villeneuve and Arnoux at Dijon, Alonso against Schumacher at Imola in 2005. So some expect Mark Webber, one hard-nose driver to just give up without a fight? I really don't think that's realistic.

And sorry but...no drivers in F1 lack overtaking skills. Even Karthikeyan. You simply can't get there without them. When you see collisions from overtaking maneuvers in F1 its generally a failure of judgement, not a failure of execution.

i laugh when people say "Vettel can't overtake" yea that makes alot of sense,a double world champion with multiple race victories,multiple poles etc can't do probably the simplest thing in racing,yep that makes alot of sense

No one expects Mark to roll over, but putting your car very tight to the inside going into a 90 degree corner is not wise especially when you are leading the championship.

That incident is just as likely to end with Webber losing his front wing end plate and Hamilton continuing. The title was very very tight at that point and it was a bit risky from Webber.

He cost himself the title in the very next race with another silly move and this time paid the price.

It wasn't risky from Webber though. He was being overtaken and had a right to defend his position. As you say, he's not supposed to roll over. It was a racing incident yes, but if one could apportion blame in that incident. More of it will be at Hamilton's door. He can't turn into the corner like that and expect Webber to vanish.

This.

He did the exact same thing to Kobayashi a year later in Spa. Once making that mistake is fair enough, twice makes him look a big silly and that he doesn't learn. We all know he's a better driver than that.

I would even argue he did a similar thing in Valencia 2012 with Maldonado but I still have doubts about which pedal Maldonado had his foot on as he hit Lewis so Hamilton gets the benefit of the doubt.

At Spa BOTH drivers made a mistake . Kobayashi turned in Lewis direction when Lewis passed him, & Lewis thought he was already past. Kobayashi had as much fault as Hamilton.

Valencia was completely different!Maldonado was the overtaker thereMaldonado made a mistake and left the track , as he changed back to the track he lost the control of the car & he drove straight into HamiltonMaldonado had also cut the corner with his trip off the track, he would have had to let Lewis past anyhow. To try to put blame on Hamilton for Valencia 2012 is absolutely ridiculous!

You should try to watch the races

Read more closely Haribo. I never out any blame on Hamilton for Valencia. In hindsight one could argue with finalised tyres he could have just let Pastor go though. But like I said I dunno how hard Pastor was actually pushing on his brake pedal at that point in time...

As for Spa, it was Hamilton's fault. Everyone said so at the time and nothing has changed since then. He cut across KK thinking he'd completed the move when he hadn't.

Not everyone.

1.You can't compare Valencia 2012 with Singapore 20102. It was 100% Maldonados fault, there was not even a discussion about it, to say to give Hamilton the benefit of doubt there is nonsense, because there had never been any doubt, who caused the collission3. Why should Hamilton let Maldonado through? If you argue like this you could also have said Webber should have let Hamilton trough

For the non drivers in the lot: you have to realize that there is a point of no return when choosing a line, and its often a LOT earlier than you think it is. And the brakes are NOT always an option. In this case, slamming on the brakes would have ended in Lewis getting plowed like snow into the wall, in the t-bone position. Just because there is a point in the maneuver where Lewis is rear wheel to front with Mark doesn't mean that is when the decision is made. That is why I say its useless arguing these things with people who don't have the experience. Until you sit in a car and do the laps you can't always easily identify the committal, the options, or the consequences. I obviously can't fault anyone for not having that experience, but I will say you should be less steadfast in your interpretation of an incident if you don't for sure know what you are talking about.

If I'm watching something like X Factor and I think an artist would have done a better job with a different song, I might say so. But if the judges say the song was okay and something else was at fault for a poor performance, I'm not gonna argue. They know, I don't. Even if it wasn't the judges and just a friend watching with me, I'd just say "in my opinion" or "I think" and not try to argue that I am definitely right, because I just don't know. Its not my field.

Self aggrandising, condoscending drivel to a humorous degree

Ex F1 driver/pundits did not agree on who was at fault - but you know better or best? It's your field after all.

If I were lewis I would have let pasta have that...knowing pasta and knowing the stakes. The only person who thought that was going to work out okay was Lewis. While its not his fault Pasta did what he did, it is his fault for being there and giving him the opportunity. Lost good points there. Needed more Fernandoism in that moment.

1.You can't compare Valencia 2012 with Singapore 20102. It was 100% Maldonados fault, there was not even a discussion about it, to say to give Hamilton the benefit of doubt there is nonsense, because there had never been any doubt, who caused the collission3. Why should Hamilton let Maldonado through? If you argue like this you could also have said Webber should have let Hamilton trough

In hindsight I said it probably would have been better to let Maldonado through. Hamilton wouldn't have been in the wall that way at least but yes why should he have when they are racing.

Just like in hindsight Webber maybe should have let Hamilton go but why should he when racing for a Championship?

You see where this is going? You accuse me of not being consistent but neither are you. If Hamilton shouldn't have given up in Valencia then why should Webber have done so in Singapore? After all unlike Hamilton in Spain Webber's tyres were fine in Singapore.

For the non drivers in the lot: you have to realize that there is a point of no return when choosing a line, and its often a LOT earlier than you think it is. And the brakes are NOT always an option. In this case, slamming on the brakes would have ended in Lewis getting plowed like snow into the wall, in the t-bone position. Just because there is a point in the maneuver where Lewis is rear wheel to front with Mark doesn't mean that is when the decision is made. That is why I say its useless arguing these things with people who don't have the experience. Until you sit in a car and do the laps you can't always easily identify the committal, the options, or the consequences. I obviously can't fault anyone for not having that experience, but I will say you should be less steadfast in your interpretation of an incident if you don't for sure know what you are talking about.

If I'm watching something like X Factor and I think an artist would have done a better job with a different song, I might say so. But if the judges say the song was okay and something else was at fault for a poor performance, I'm not gonna argue. They know, I don't. Even if it wasn't the judges and just a friend watching with me, I'd just say "in my opinion" or "I think" and not try to argue that I am definitely right, because I just don't know. Its not my field.

Self aggrandising, condoscending drivel to a humorous degree

Ex F1 driver/pundits did not agree on who was at fault - but you know better or best? It's your field after all.

The stewards did - it is THEIR field. Literally and figuratively. They called it a 50/50, same as I did. Its Mark's fault he gave Lewis the opportunity, and Lewis' for taking the bait. But only one had the power to stop it once Mark had made his decision.

1.You can't compare Valencia 2012 with Singapore 20102. It was 100% Maldonados fault, there was not even a discussion about it, to say to give Hamilton the benefit of doubt there is nonsense, because there had never been any doubt, who caused the collission3. Why should Hamilton let Maldonado through? If you argue like this you could also have said Webber should have let Hamilton trough

In hindsight I said it probably would have been better to let Maldonado through. Hamilton wouldn't have been in the wall that way at least but yes why should he have when they are racing.

Just like in hindsight Webber maybe should have let Hamilton go but why should he when racing for a Championship?

You see where this is going? You accuse me of not being consistent but neither are you. If Hamilton shouldn't have given up in Valencia then why should Webber have done so in Singapore? After all unlike Hamilton in Spain Webber's tyres were fine in Singapore.

Lewis should have given up the place in Spain although it was Pastors fault he lacked foresight in how that would end.Mark should have given up the place in Singapore although overall it was a 50/50 Mark lacked foresight in how that would end.

1.You can't compare Valencia 2012 with Singapore 20102. It was 100% Maldonados fault, there was not even a discussion about it, to say to give Hamilton the benefit of doubt there is nonsense, because there had never been any doubt, who caused the collission3. Why should Hamilton let Maldonado through? If you argue like this you could also have said Webber should have let Hamilton trough

In hindsight I said it probably would have been better to let Maldonado through. Hamilton wouldn't have been in the wall that way at least but yes why should he have when they are racing.

Just like in hindsight Webber maybe should have let Hamilton go but why should he when racing for a Championship?

You see where this is going? You accuse me of not being consistent but neither are you. If Hamilton shouldn't have given up in Valencia then why should Webber have done so in Singapore? After all unlike Hamilton in Spain Webber's tyres were fine in Singapore.

Quote:

I would even argue he did a similar thing in Valencia 2012 with Maldonado but I still have doubts about which pedal Maldonado had his foot on as he hit Lewis so Hamilton gets the benefit of the doubt.

What Did Hamilton similar there with Maldonado?Nothing, because the roles where completely different

The only simillartiy is, it was Hamilton, who had to retire from a race

It the same when the people put the blame for canada 2011 on Hamilton and Spa for 2011, too

I was about to post a thread regarding Hamilton and his abilities. However I saw this one pop up and I really do not need to create one

Anyway to the question, Hamilton's abilities have been questioned a lot over the past couple years. He has had much scrutiny from the Media and the stewards (last year). I like Hamilton he a great guy, but his track attitude a bit too aggressive for my liking. Back to the question, Vettel, Alonso, Button, and Kimi would surely beat Hamilton.

1.You can't compare Valencia 2012 with Singapore 20102. It was 100% Maldonados fault, there was not even a discussion about it, to say to give Hamilton the benefit of doubt there is nonsense, because there had never been any doubt, who caused the collission3. Why should Hamilton let Maldonado through? If you argue like this you could also have said Webber should have let Hamilton trough

1. Agreed

2. Maldonado did screw up, but Hamilton made the strategic error of racing a driver he did not have to. At that time, Hamilton was leading the WDC, Maldonado was just racing for position. I've always preached that you don't just race everyone, you race the ones you have to beat. Maldonado was not on Hamilton's list for that situation. Great drivers, especially Prost, practiced wonderful racecraft by understanding the big picture, and driving accordingly.

3. In Singapore 2010 both Hamilton and Webber were battling for the title, late in the season. It was a pivotal race, and moment. In Valencia in 2012, Hamilton was leading the WDC and Maldonado was not in that picture. Maldonado was much quicker, he has a well-earned reputation for excessive aggression leading to mistakes, and if Hamiton had chosen to allow Maldonado past, he would have finished the race and still be in powerful contention for the WDC.

In Valencia, Hamilton did not make any driving errors, but he made one huge strategic error by racing someone he should not have.

Funny how some believe it was acceptable for Hamilton to contest a position with Maldonado, who had fresher tires and was quicker, while maintaining that Webber should have given way.

..This is another one of those threads where I feel bad for being a Hamilton fan isn't it.

Can I ask Haribo and A.rellum; Spa 2011 - Hamilton and Kobayashi; Who do you think was at fault?Because it was the same thing as Singapore 2010.

The fact is he closed the door too early in an overtake and took himself out.

I think he's a bloody great driver and one of my favourite, but Christ alive, the amount of times I've gone "Oh Hami,Hami,Hami...what are you doing?" over the past 5 years.... It's ok to admit your favourite driver makes mistakes.

I like this forummer a lot! Can support a driver and see his mistakes! Guys we've got another good one here!

(Im having trouble filling the hours, its a snow day at work...which means there are no students to teach)

Alonso did not beat Schumacher when the pressure was on, the reality is he lost the title at crunch time (Japan) but Michaels Engine happened to blow up meaning that Alonso went in to the final race 10 points ahead instead of 4 points down.

Had Schumacher finished 1st in Japan with Alonso 2nd, Alonso still would have won the title by a point.

Hindsight.

At crunch time, Alonso had it lost. Sure he beat MS in Brazil, but MS had a mechanical failure in qualifying and a puncture that put him a lap down in the race.

Alonso went to Brazil needing an 8th place (if Schumacher won the race) to win the title, least pressure you could ever have. The only way MS could win the title was Alonso out of the points and MS winning the race.

Not knocking Alonso, but that is how the situation was. Alonso went in Japan with the championship lead and could do nothing about MS until his engine blew. Just the way it played out, his car was much slower by then.

So now you want to change 2 results?

Get over it man, Alonso won the title fair and square.

The Alonso-Renault package was the best for the first half of the season. Then the FIA changed the rules and they dropped back. And he still won the title.Schumacher's engine blow in Suzuka was one of the best examples of karma that I have ever seen.

Please do not quote offensive posts, just report them. By quoting them you increase the amount of cleanup we have to do and run the risk of being warned yourselves, as per the forum rules. Thanks in advance!

Please do not quote offensive posts, just report them. By quoting them you increase the amount of cleanup we have to do and run the risk of being warned yourselves, as per the forum rules. Thanks in advance!

Sorry boss.

_________________"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."

There are only three drivers with a realistic chance of doing so under normal circumstances - Vettel, Raikkonen and Alonso.

2011 was surprising when Button beat him, but you have to give credit to Button. There might have been talk that Hamilton was unhappy or whatever, but you don't see other drivers having their private lives taken into account when their performance dips, so I'm inclined to ignore that.

I think Button and Webber could beat him but it'd be much less likely than the three I mentioned before.

There are only three drivers with a realistic chance of doing so under normal circumstances - Vettel, Raikkonen and Alonso.

2011 was surprising when Button beat him, but you have to give credit to Button. There might have been talk that Hamilton was unhappy or whatever, but you don't see other drivers having their private lives taken into account when their performance dips, so I'm inclined to ignore that.

I think Button and Webber could beat him but it'd be much less likely than the three I mentioned before.

Serious personal problems can very much influence anything. D. Hill was speaking of a idendity crises Hamilton had gone through, don't know if this was the reason or only Hills assumption

Please do not quote offensive posts, just report them. By quoting them you increase the amount of cleanup we have to do and run the risk of being warned yourselves, as per the forum rules. Thanks in advance!